Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

Diego Linan vs Marcos Puno (G.R. No.

L-9608)Facts: Linan an owner of a parcel of land executed a document stating the power, duties and obligations of Puno: I, Diego Lian, of age, married, a resident of Daet, Province of Ambos Camarines, Philippine Islands, and at the present timetemporarily residing in this city of Tarlac, capital of the Province of Tarlac, P.I., set forth that I hereby confer sufficient power, such as the law requires, upon Mr. Marcos P. Puno, likewise a resident of this city of Tarlac, capital of the Province of Tarlac, in order that in my name and representation he may administer the interest I possess within this municipality of Tarlac, purchase, sell, collect and pay, as well as sue and besued before any authority, appear before the courts of justice and administrative officers in any proceeding or business concerning the good administration and advancement of my said interests, and may, in necessary cases, appoint attorneys at law or attorneys in fact to represent him. June 1911 Puno sold and delivered the said parcel of land to the other defendants for a sum of 800pesosPlaintiff alleges that the document did not confer upon Puno the power to sell the land and prayed that the sale be set aside, the land bereturned to him together with damages.Puno contend s that the sale was valid and prayed that he be relieved from any liability. Issue: Whether the sale of Puno acting as an agent of Linan was a valid sale ? Ruling: RTC: Favored plaintiff Linan That the document(1) did not give Puno authority to sell the land;(2) that the sale was illegal and void;(3) That defendants should return to the land to the plaintiff; and(4) That the defendants should pay to the plaintiff the sum of P1,000 as damages, P400 of which the defendant Puno should alone beresponsible for, and to pay the costsSCFavored defendant puno : to quote;The SC examined the power conferred upon the defendant Puno (Exhibit A) and ascertain, if possible, what was the real intent of the plaintiff.The lower court held that the "only power conferred was the power to administer." Reading the contract we find it says that the plaintiff "Iconfer ... power ... that ... he may administer ... purchase, sell, collect and pay ... in any proceeding or business concerning the goodadministration and advancement of my said interests." The words "administer, purchase, sell," etc., seem to be used coordinately. Each hasequal force with the other. There seems to be no good reason for saying that Puno had authority to administer and not to sell when "to sell" wasas advantageous to the plaintiff in the administration of his affairs as "to administer." To hold that the power was "to administer" only when thepower "to sell" was equally conferred would be to give to special words of the contract a special and limited meaning to the exclusion of other general words of equal import.The record contains no allegation on proof that Puno acted in bad faith or fraudulently in selling the land. It will be presumed that he acted ingood faith and in accordance with his power as he understood it. That his interpretation of his power, as gathered from the contractthe other defendants acted in good faith, we are of the opinion that the contract, liberally construed, as we think it should be, justifies theinterpretation given it by Puno. In reaching this conclusion, we have taken into account the fact that the plaintiff delayed his action to annul saidsale from the month of June, 1911, until the 15th of February, 1913. Neither have we overlooked the fact in the brief of the appellants that theplaintiff has not returned, nor offered to return, nor indicated a willingness to return, the purchase price In view

of all the foregoing, we are of theopinion that the lower court committed the error complained of in the second assignment, and, without discussing the other assignments of error, we are of the opinion, and so hold, that the judgment of the lower court should be and is hereby revoked and that the appellants shouldbe relieved from all liability under the complaint.

Похожие интересы